Photography. Is it (still) Art?
Historically, saying something artistically significant with photography has always been a tough proposition. Years of technical work perfecting a craft, a compulsion to photograph, raw talent and a burning need to make a statement were always the baseline requirements. Few attained the goal of Jedi Master.In the age of digital, itň€™s equally difficult to reach the heights. Excellent craft, compulsion to work, talent and having something significant to say are still in the mix. But now I believe a new factor has been added; the requirement for novel subject matter.
Iň€™m in the process of putting together a business plan for a photographic rep firm. Part of what Iň€™m doing is looking at the work of photographers who are not well known, but who have nevertheless developed a good craft and make lovely images.
After looking at thousands of images, what Iň€™m absolutely struck with and never expected to encounter is the banality of the imagery being produced. And I use the word banal in the exact dictionary sense: ň€śdull or stale because of overuse, trite, hackneyed, commonplaceň€ť. Not that these arenň€™t technically well done wonderful shots of beautiful landscapes, buildings, social man and female bodies. But damn, if I see one more print of a mountain stream done with a time exposure and a 90mm Schneider Super-Angulon lens, I think Iň€™m gonna puke.
Twentieth century photography was absolutely ablaze with a galaxy of talent including the likes of Edward and Brett Weston, Paul Strand, Bill Brandt, Imogen Cunningham, Bernice Abbott, Gene Smith, Ralph Gibson, Diane Arbus, Danny Lyon, Sally Mann, Eliot Porter, the list goes on and on. Each one of these artists and many more not here listed produced or are producing a unique corpus of work.
Unfortunately some of the newer folks seem to be producing work that is entirely derivative in nature and this is particularly prevalent in landscape work. I can literally group many of these shots into individual categories and trace their direct lineage back to the original work by another artist. Sun bleached tree backlit against dark polarized lake. Dark prairie field with dramatic thunderhead. Twisted nude with side lighting against black velvet. Itň€™s as though the camera is being placed at an identical GPS coordinate, same film, same time of day, same print treatment as the ň€˜originalň€™. Oyň€¦.
I think part of the reason for this is that there are far more shooters per unit of subject matter than When A. Adams and E. Weston were running around the countryside with 8x10 view cameras. It may simply be that photography and image making have become an identifiable lifestyle inhabited by lots of people versus the relative few who came before. Ansel is famously quoted as saying that craft must be mastered to produce art. Now that we have a lot of people who have mastered the craft, is it still art?